Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Official says bar owners must tell smokers to leave premises
The Register Guard ^ | 8 May 02 | by Jeff Wright

Posted on 05/08/2002 1:12:47 PM PDT by Glutton

Official says bar owners must tell smokers to leave premises

By JEFF WRIGHT 
The Register-Guard

 

Recommend this story to others.

 
Eugene bar owners can't skirt the city's indoor smoking ban simply by refusing to serve a customer who won't quit puffing, a hearings official has ruled.

In hearing an appeal filed by Our Place Tavern, official Gary Darnielle agreed to reduce owner Jim Trunnell's fine by almost half to $240. But he also ruled that Trunnell's business violated the smoking ban, and said business owners or employees must tell a smoking customer to stop immediately or leave the premises.

Darnielle "concluded that owners must take a proactive approach in getting smokers to stop smoking," said Mike McKerrow, the city's land use management supervisor. "Simply saying, `If you smoke inside this building, I won't serve you anymore' is not enough."

City officials and anti-tobacco advocates say overall compliance with the smoking ban has been good. But a handful of bar owners have been fined, including several who have appealed their citations.

The city's ban, approved by the City Council in November 2000, is more restrictive than a statewide ban on workplace smoking that went into effect this year. Unlike Eugene's ban, the state law allows smoking in bars, bingo halls and bowling alleys.

Trunnell and other bar owners, citing substantial drops in business, have asked the council to repeal the city law in favor of the state ban. But so far only one councilor, Pat Farr, has proposed revisiting the topic.

Trunnell, whose bar is on Highway 99 North, said he feels partially vindicated because the hearings official agreed to lower his fine from $420 to $240.

Trunnell said that he'd done all the city had asked - removing ashtrays, posting no-smoking signs and telling patrons they won't be served if they light up.

But Trunnell is still miffed because he also had to pay a $150 filing fee to appeal - and the city won't reimburse him.

Trunnell said he may file a complaint in civil court to get the filing fee back.

"I feel I'm being treated unfairly - I'm not getting my money back when I proved that I wasn't as negligent as the city said I was," he said.

McKerrow said a filing fee can be refunded only if a hearings official finds that the city's citation against a business is baseless. That's not the situation in Trunnell's case, he said.

City officials said they believe Darnielle reduced Trunnell's fine because he wasn't at the business when the violation occurred and had made some effort to inform customers not to smoke, including the posting of signs.

Three other businesses have appeals hearings scheduled this month: Brew & Cue on Highway 99 North; John Henry's, which recently vacated its premises on East 11th Avenue but plans to relocate on the downtown mall; and Sher's Tavern on West 11th.


Copyright © 2002 The Register-Guard



TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: pufflist; smokersliability; smokersrights; tobaccobans
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 05/08/2002 1:12:48 PM PDT by Glutton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Glutton
Brew & Cue on Highway 99 North

There is something really funny about a smokeless pool hall. Unless you are the owner.

2 posted on 05/08/2002 1:27:21 PM PDT by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
Health is too important to leave to the individual. It is a matter of the survival of the state. Think of the little children.


3 posted on 05/08/2002 1:36:23 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck
Their trying to pass laws like that here in Durango, CO.

If they do, the bars are gonna need REAL BIG BOUNCERS!

This is a tourist trap town basically, but there's still plenty of ol' cowboys around these here parts who won't take this kindly...I gave up bars for the most part due to the cost ($4.00 for a shot of Jose'!)...but I'm sittin' back and waiting for these laws, and watch the brawls.

FMCDH

4 posted on 05/08/2002 1:38:41 PM PDT by nothingnew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
Unbelievable! Disgusting!
5 posted on 05/08/2002 1:39:01 PM PDT by GOP_Lady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
I am still waiting for a court case that goes somewhere beyond the realms of the 9th Circuit Court of appeals.....that challenges how a government entity can impose a ban on a legal substance. Or am I off-base on this?
6 posted on 05/08/2002 1:51:04 PM PDT by justshe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
For the record, I don't smoke but I'll be damned if this isn't the most tyrannical thing I've ever heard of. The reasonable limit on this sort of thing was passed a long time ago.
7 posted on 05/08/2002 2:12:13 PM PDT by davisfh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
By what authority?The whole dam*city should be sued into bankruptcy!
8 posted on 05/08/2002 2:38:01 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
Here is a little "quote" that may catch on...or not. I've been forming this from history, FreeRepublic, and my own warped, but conservative mind.

The power of the tyrant over free men can be taken at the ballot box, or on the battlefield. It makes no difference to the free man being enslaved. The choice is that of the tyrant.

9 posted on 05/08/2002 3:17:46 PM PDT by timydnuc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
The Liberal Taliban in action.
"Scratch the leftist, discover the brownshirt. "
--section9

10 posted on 05/08/2002 3:25:32 PM PDT by Savage Beast
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Outstanding find.

L

11 posted on 05/08/2002 3:27:14 PM PDT by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
In my opinion, why should the burden be all on the establishment owners?

All those so-called big beefy hackers should get their fat duffs off their bar stools, organize and storm city hall. Or organize a noisy boycott of all affected entertainment palaces for a week or two. Will hurt the owners a wee bit for a wee while, but worth it in the long run.

Heck, if the owners were smart, they'd join the boycott themselves and picket their own joints!

Leni

12 posted on 05/08/2002 3:35:43 PM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
Health is too important to leave to the individual.

It really is amazing how many people believe that to be true. At the end of the day, the State becomes more important than the Individual.
Public Safety rules.

13 posted on 05/08/2002 3:47:43 PM PDT by zoyd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
This poster advertises the Nazi charity, the NSV. The text translates: "Health, child protection, fighting poverty, aiding travellers, community, helping mothers: These are the tasks of the National Socialist People's Charity. Become a member!" Courtesy of Dr. Robert D. Brooks.
14 posted on 05/08/2002 3:48:35 PM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: *puff_list
index bump
15 posted on 05/08/2002 4:34:51 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
So it is a Crime for a bar owner to not physically enforce laws passed by some city council, If the city council wants the laws enforced get the Cops to do it or have the elected city council members get off their butts and do something themselves.
16 posted on 05/08/2002 4:39:08 PM PDT by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
Darnielle "concluded that owners must take a proactive approach in getting smokers to stop smoking,"

The only way you will get me to stop smoking in a pub is to first stop serving alcohol in it.

17 posted on 05/08/2002 4:45:09 PM PDT by riley1992
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
"I feel I'm being treated unfairly

Unfair is not the word I would use.

18 posted on 05/08/2002 4:48:36 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinuteGal
Heck, if the owners were smart, they'd join the boycott themselves and picket their own joints!

I am just wondering. Does the owner have to go outside to smoke?

Is it allowed for the patrons to go outside with their beer so they can smoke while they talk to others?

That is why people go to bars. And most everyone smokes.

19 posted on 05/08/2002 4:48:40 PM PDT by carenot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Glutton
Being from Oregon, I am so disgusted, but what should I expect from the tyrannical and socialist mecca of Eugene, where the Anarchists are allowed to run rampant, but Law abiding citizens beware.

Corvallis, just North of Eugene has done this as well, the bars in both cities are finding thier business stagnate while those outside those cities are finding thier business jump. BUT, they are also noticing a NOTICEABLE increase in DUI's, so, either you allow smoking in your bars and allow the business's stay in business, or you kill them and some more of your citizens due to drunk drivers driving BACK into town from a place where they COULD smoke.
20 posted on 05/08/2002 4:55:33 PM PDT by Aric2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson